PRICASPIAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION et al v. GONZALEZ et al

Filing 154

ORDER denying pltf's 109 Motion for Default Judgment, w/out prejudice. Signed by Judge Faith S. Hochberg on 4/30/2014. (nr, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

PRICASPIAN DEVELOPMENT, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

v.
GERARDO GONZALEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Hon. Faith S. Hochberg
ORDER
Civil Action No. 13-0549 (FSH) (JBC)

Date: April 30, 2014

HOCHBERG, District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court upon the Motion by Plaintiffs Jack Grynberg,
Grynberg Petroleum Company, and Pricaspian Development Corporation (collectively
“Plaintiffs”) for Default Judgment; the Court having reviewed the submissions of the parties
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; and for good cause shown;
it appearing that Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on January 28, 2013 (ECF No. 1) asserting
causes of action including, among other things, civil conspiracy, fraud, and conversion;
it appearing that the Complaint was filed against Defendants Geraldo Gonzalez, Teresa
Corcoran-Schaefer, Devyn Schaefer, Paula Sterbens, Retailers Management Group, Inc., Barbara
Queen I/T/F/ John Carr, Marketing Digest, Inc., The Circle M Group, Inc., CAS Services, Inc.,
Sovereign Bank, Wells Fargo Bank, and Retailers Marketing Group, Inc.;
it appearing that Plaintiffs seek entry of default judgment against some, but not all,
Defendants, including Circle M Group, Inc., Retailers Marketing Group, Inc., Smart Money,
Inc., Marketing Digest, Inc., and Barbara Queen I/T/F/ John Carr (ECF No. 109) (collectively
1

“defaulting Defendants”);
it appearing that the defaulting Defendants are artificial entities and may appear in federal
courts only through licensed counsel;1 (see ECF 120 (citing Rowland v. California Men’s
Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993); Simbraw v. United States, 367 F.2d 373, 374 (3d Cir.
1966), Van De Berg v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 175 F. App’x 539, 541 (3d Cir. 2006));
it appearing that to this date, the defaulting Defendants have not answered or opposed
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment;
it appearing that at least one Defendant, Geraldo Gonzalez, answered the Complaint, and
the action is proceeding against this defendant;
it appearing that the Complaint asserts that the Defendants are “jointly and severally
liable” for a fraudulent conspiracy (Compl. ¶ 82), which included the defaulting Defendants and
Geraldo Gonzalez, who has not defaulted;
it appearing that under certain circumstances the Court should not enter judgment against
a defaulting defendant for a particular amount when liability is joint and several and not all
defendants have defaulted, Frow v. De La Vega, 82 U.S. 552, 554 (1872); 10A Fed. Prac. &
Proc. Civ. § 2690 (3d ed.);
it appearing that “if default is entered against some defendants in a multi-defendant case,

1

The Court has given the corporate principals of these artificial entities notice of the requirement
that counsel must be retained on behalf of each artificial entity, (see ECF No. 96), numerous
opportunities to retain counsel for the entities, extensions of time to retain counsel, and both the
Court and opposing counsel have informed the principals that the consequence of failure to retain
counsel on behalf of these entities shall be default judgment (see ECF No. 32 (Plaintiffs’ Motion
to Strike Defendants’ Answers for failure to appear by an attorney); ECF No. 94 (providing
Defendants additional time to retain an attorney licensed to practice before this Court); ECF No.
95 (same); ECF No. 96 (same); ECF No. 100 (Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Strike); ECF No. 103
(granting Plaintiffs’ motion to strike Defendants’ Answers because no notices of appearance had
been entered on behalf of these Defendants and Defendants’ Answers were not signed and filed
by an attorney admitted to the federal bar); ECF No. 120 (denying reconsideration because,
among other things, “the Principals have now had over three months to retain new counsel” and
have still failed to do so)).
2

the preferred practice is for the court to withhold granting default judgment until the action is
resolved on its merits against non-defaulting defendants,” Animal Sci. Products, Inc. v. China
Nat. Metals & Minerals Imp. & Exp. Corp., 596 F. Supp. 2d 842, 849 (D.N.J. 2008), see also
F.T.C. v. Preferred Platinum Servs. Network, LLC, 10-cv-538, 2010 WL 3883403, at *2 (D.N.J.
Sept. 28, 2010);
it appearing that “the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but
fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason
for delay,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);
IT IS on this 30th day of April, 2014;
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 109) is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiffs may refile their motion within 30 days of a resolution of the
matter against the remaining non-defaulting Defendants; the Clerk’s entry of default against
Circle M Group, Inc., Retailers Marketing Group, Inc., Smart Money, Inc., Marketing Digest,
Inc., and Barbara Queen I/T/F/ John Carr will remain.

IT IS SO ORDERED

/s/ Faith S. Hochberg__________
Hon. Faith S. Hochberg, U.S.D.J.

3